This one is too much. Who could write an opinion column called "Fake news is all around us" and neglect to mention their own so well documented contributions? I have frequently suggested (or claimed outright) that Tom Fletcher's ego is quite large. So why does he not take such an obvious opportunity to point out his own contributions to the fake news-o-sphere?

TF:[Fake news] flourishes in an age where conventional news organizations have reduced revenues, shifted to Facebook and Google primarily, and more pressure to report quickly.

Here's why. Tom Fletcher (probably, let's not accuse him of knowingly repeating this fake news) does not realise that his wrong opinions on climate change are just regurgitated fake news. This is high quality fake stuff so I can understand his confusion. There's excellent documentation of funding of the kind of fake climate change news that Tom Fletcher thinks is real. Funding to the amount of US$900 million per year*.

I bet that's peanuts compared to the amounts that Skeena Wild and Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition—which Tom Fletcher tells us "are funded by U.S. foundations"—get. Hey, maybe Tom Fletcher will realise that this kind of funding of fake news might itself be newsworthy. What do you think Tom Fletcher will write about?

TF: The environment groups maintain a website that feeds out news releases, high definition video and photos from their news conferences. It's just the thing for time-starved newsrooms, guiding them along a narrative of greedy, reckless resource development.

Look, I get it. "In an age where conventional news organizations have reduced revenues" it's difficult for a journalist like Tom Fletcher to find sources of real climate science. He's only working for a small local free newspaper after all. He's not the New York Times or something. Anyway, he'd have to read boring reports from the IPCC that are only available on the internet for free. That's time consuming! Or, he might have to talk to world class experts atoneofseverallocalinstitutions**. Who knows what they might say? It might be complicated. What a pain. People would struggle with what he writes and then he'd have to work harder too. That sucks!

Maybe that's the problem. It's all just too complicated and confusing. After all, Tom Fletcher appears to struggle with his profession's ethics guidlines. Those guidelines demand hard things like Accuracy (We seek documentation to support the reliability of those sources and their stories, and we are careful to distinguish between assertions and fact. The onus is on us to verify all information and When we make a mistake, whether in fact or in context, and regardless of the platform, we correct it promptly and in a transparent manner, acknowledging the nature of the error), Fairness (We do not allow our own biases to impede fair and accurate reporting, Independence (We do not give favoured treatment to advertisers and special interests. We resist their efforts to influence the news), Conflict of Interest (If a journalist does choose to espouse a particular political viewpoint, this activity could create a public perception of bias), and Transparency (We normally identify sources of information, and If we borrow material from another source we are careful to credit the original source, and We disclose to our audiences any biases that could be perceived to influence our reporting).

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some opinions though, Tom Fletcher, are worthless.

**The institutions hidden behind links here are: UVic, UBC, SFU, Camosun, VIU, PCIC. And yes, people working there do excellent work. Tom Fletcher could call up at least two dozen people who would help him understand the lies and nonsense he has been repeating. Effortlessly. He only has to try.